Snowmobiles and ATVs

Pierre-Yvon Bégin

UPA calls for compensations

In addition to vandalism and property damage, snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) cause significant yield losses to the crops of farmers and wood producers. These producers should therefore receive some kind of cash compensation for the right-of-way that they have been granting without fees for years.

This is the principal demand made by the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) before the parliamentary commission on transport and environment. For several days now, MLAs have been holding consultation sessions on the Ministry of Transport’s document concerning off-road vehicles.

Foremost, the UPA criticizes the fact that the orientation document makes no reference to the damages or inconveniences suffered by its members. Over and above the yield losses in pastures and hay fields, it is not uncommon, according to the UPA, that farmers must mend broken fences and repair vandalized buildings. A special fund, financed through trail fees and fines, should be available to compensate producers.

‘No’ to increasing age limit to 16

In a surprise move, the Ministry is proposing to increase the age limit from the 14 up to16 years of age in order to be allowed to drive a snowmobile or an ATV on the trails. The UPA is astonished by this proposition and demands that the minimum age be maintained at 14 years, at least when doing commercial work. A landowner should also be allowed to travel on the trails even if he is not a member, and even if his type of vehicle is prohibited on trails.

Concerning the civil responsibility of the landowners granting the right-of-way, the government agrees with the idea of giving immunity to farmers against lawsuits issuing from an accident. The UPA is also pleased to see that the province plans to enact two protections, one against unneighbourly behavior and the second in the case of accidents.

The UPA also welcomes the establishment of regional discussion tables, which would bring together all the stakeholders in an area on the issue. Since the presence of the agricultural and forestry communities at these tables is considered essential, the UPA requests that seats be reserved ex-officio for both an agricultural representative and for the wood producers syndicate of the region. These tables would have the specific mandate to set out permanent and semi-permanent inter-regional networks of trails for snowmobiles and another all-season trail network for quads. The union also demands that the trail markers not cause additional restrictions to farmers. In addition, it insists that new money be made available by the government to maintain these trails and has denounced the Ministry’s present plan to limit itself to the existing programs.

In the opinion of the UPA, the notion of permanency of the trails is unacceptable. Producers, they say, must be allowed the possibility to re-adjust the location of trails to suit their needs. The primary vocation of the land must remain the priority and the designation of the trail network must not be part of the permanent regional land-use plan. Finally, the union is not opposed to the government’s suggestion concerning the signing of three or five-year leases.

Overall, the UPA is pleased to remark that the government acknowledges that access to agricultural and forestry land is not a right, but a privilege granted by the landowner. The province and municipalities must also renounce their recourse to expropriation, says the UPA, citing that they are carefully following the case of Saint-Zénon in the Lanaudière region, where the municipality has chosen to use expropriation to obtain access to their territory.

Annual meeting of the CFA

Jean-Charles Gagné

A decrease of $5.7 billion in net farm income over three years

The federal government would have had to give an additional $5.7 billion to Canadian farmers over the last three years just to maintain the dwindling net income of the nation’s agricultural producers. It is not surprising then that net farm income was a priority at the annual general meeting of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA), held from February 28 to March 3, 2006. In fact, even more worrisome predictions are showing an additional decrease of 16 per cent for net revenue in 2006.

“Agriculture, including Quebec’s, remains very fragile, where a small increase in the interest rates could send many farms, even dairy farms, plunging into the red,” declared CFA Vice-president Laurent Pellerin at the end of their assembly, which marked the 70 ^th anniversary of this unionist organization.

The CFA had just finalized its Canadian Farm Bill project, with the adoption of 50 resolutions concerning, notably, income security, food safety, supply management, international trade, the reinforcement of power to farmers, milk ingredients and the environment.

Strahl disappointing

Ontario farmers, wearing yellow shirts bearing the slogan “Farmers Feed Cities!” denounced the inefficiencies of the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization program (CAIS) for grain producers in particular, on the occasion of a visit by the federal Minister of Agriculture, Chuck Strahl. They claimed that they were waiting impatiently for the Conservative government to keep its promise to increase the agriculture budget by $500 million per year. While waiting for the complete reform package promised by the Conservatives, which is not due until 2008, the assembly demanded the creation of supplementary assistance programs to permit provincial governments to maintain support and flexibility for specific agricultural products. The delegates also asked for a more equitable baseline for the calculation of reference margins, a simplification of the administrative rules and the replacement of the cash deposit by annual fees.

Minister Strahl disappointed dairy producers when he did not make any reference in his speech to milk ingredients. The president of Canadian Milk Producers, Jacques Laforge, interpreted this as a sign that this issue is not a priority for the minister. “The Minister must get on track, either by using Article 28 of the WHO regulations, to limit imports of milk ingredients to the present volumes plus 10 per cent, or to pass legislation to end the entry of these products into Canada—a measure that would hurt food processors, who wish to maintain their historic volumes and would probably lead them to lodge disputes.” For the moment, the cooperatives support the milk producers’ petition, while the private sector opposes it.

Minister Strahl antagonized delegates when he repeated his party’s promise to create a “parallel” system of marketing for grain in the western Canada. He believes that the Canadian Wheat Board does not respond well to new niche markets that grain producers wish to explore. “The CFA opposes any attempt by the federal government to eliminate the monopolistic power of the Wheat Board, by allowing voluntary membership,” declared CFA President Bob Friesen. “It is up to farmers and not government to make any changes in the structure of the board, if they care to.”

The delegates responded favorably to the invitation by Minister Strahl to create new agricultural markets and to develop new products, such as ethanol production, as long as these activities are profitable at the farm level.

Finally, the assembly referred to a committee, a resolution aimed at neutralizing the effects of the countervailing duties levied on imports of heavily subsidized American grain corn.

EDITORIAL: A proud heritage

Laurent Pellerin

UPA President

February 23, 1956 marked a decisive turning point in the history of agricultural syndicalism.

After years and years of continuous demands, Quebec farmers finally obtained, with the sanctioning of the Loi des marches agricoles, the right to collectively organize their joint plans and to establish the Office des marches agricoles (now called La Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires).

On this anniversary, we cannot deny that this law was the end result of a long and fierce fight on the part of farmers, a reality now etched forever in the pages of history. Previously, during the mid-1940s, the regional meetings of the UCC (now called the UPA) called for “the passage of a law concerning collective agreements for the sale of agricultural products.”

The idea of collective marketing contracts had been germinating for a long time before the final adoption of the law itself, having even appeared in the original demands of the UCC. It is helpful to understand the conditions that preceded the emergence of this idea, which formed the defining issue and central purpose of our present agricultural syndicalism.

The farmers of that era worked hard—and successfully as it turns out—to adapt to the requirements of a more modern economy (particularly through mechanization). However, this did not seem to improve their standard of living; their revenue remained relatively low and they lived with an almost permanent instability.

There were several causes for this phenomenon, as revealed in certain written records of the time: price drops caused by increased productivity, the increased share of the retail price going toward middlemen and the dealings with purchasers who were more and more concentrated and powerful. While rereading this, I can almost picture the farmers of today!

To counterbalance this, came the formation of many cooperatives, the pioneers of collective action, but this formula reached its limits: those who profited most were those who did not join and thus did not have to abide by the rules and restrictions imposed on the members—certainly an unfair situation. The result was that buyers could continue to play one producer against the other—which they did.

It was on fertile grounds that the seeds of a new idea fell—“collective contracts applied to the sale of farm products,” to use the terminology of the UCC. Along with this idea came the valuable concept of “judicial extension,” or the legal obligation of all farmers to abide by the terms of the collective agreement. The objective sought after by the UCC was to find a better equilibrium between buyers and sellers in order to obtain an “equitable share” of the selling price.

It took over ten years for these pioneers to attain their goal. They not only had to struggle under difficult conditions against strong forces, which we still battle against today, but moreover, they had to fight for the tools which would permit them to better advance their cause.

“Another time—the same fight?” you might be saying. Not exactly, because we now possess these tools today and have even improved on them, to encompass the marketing of over 85 per cent of our agricultural products—a heritage that the forerunners of this law would be proud of.

A march for equity

What stands out most when we go back to the origin of the Loi sur la mise en marche des produits agricoles, is the similarity between the demands of the UCC at that time and the issues that the UPA is fighting for today.

While our forefathers were claiming “ a fair share of the price,” here we find ourselves a half-century later “marching for equity,” with the firm desire to obtain the major part of our revenue through the sale of our produce on the market place. Although the slogan may essentially be the same, the context has changed: competition has increased while profits have diminished, often moving away from the transformation sector towards the distribution sector.

During the ‘50s, the objective was to regain the balance of power for farmers and to improve the marketing networks between the farm and the processing plants. And, as mentioned earlier, we were able to perfect our methods to organize collective marketing. This acquired expertise will always remain necessary, especially for the development of such emerging sectors as lamb production, goat milk or big game farming. However, simply improving the traditional marketing networks is no longer sufficient.

To obtain an equitable income on the market place today requires that we have some influence even farther up the marketing chain than the processing plant. For some, such as beef producers, this means becoming a player in the transformation sector, in order to be closer to the distribution network. For others among us, it means signing agreements directly with the distributors. New models must be found—we must be imaginative. Our special conference in June 2004 was in keeping with this, where we laid the foundation for our medium and long-term strategic action plan.

Nevertheless, whether it be in 1956 or in the present day, the key to success remains the same—“the strength of numbers,” in the words of former president Abel Marion. Changes and improvements are only possible if the farmers remain united and jointly responsible, whether it is to establish collective marketing for the emerging sectors or to extend our limits into the marketing network.

This is even truer today, where agricultural trade is becoming more global and the farmers of the planet are feeling the aftershocks of this phenomenon that, in the end, only results in undermining their revenue. Faced with decisions being taken “elsewhere,” a new solidarity is emerging amongst the rural people, with a need to look towards new collective methods, to enable them to re-establish the balance of power against the forces at hand. In this sense, the marketing challenge surpasses our borders and calls us to action; it is for this reason that we have become involved in UPA.DI and MAE MAE.

We also have an obligation to enlarge this support for collective marketing, to include the country’s population at large. It is up to each one of us to defend the policies and methods that presently guarantee the ‘sovereignty’ of our food supply. We must be the front-line ambassadors of this cause and rally an increased number of followers, as we did last October when we publicly reaffirmed our right to “feed our people first” under the banner of a wide-spread coalition, including representatives from all levels of society.

During all this flurry of activity, the government must strengthen its support for the Régie des marchés agricoles et alimentaires. It must give it the means to play a more active role and to develop the necessary expertise, over and above its mandate to regulate and settle disputes, to permit it to take a much more proactive and consensual approach. Let’s not forget it is the trustee of that law whose anniversary we’ve just celebrated.

Moreover, we are all partially trustees of this law—producers, processors, stakeholders in the marketing network and consumers—because everyone profits from it. This is what brings us together to “march for equity.”

Quebec will advance $42 million in April.

Pierre-Yvon Bégin

As of April 3, Quebec pork producers will be able to cash their first advance of this year’s stabilization payment. The 2065 pork producers who are covered by the Agricultural Income Stabilization Insurance (ASRA) will share a global amount of $42 million, in the form of an advance they would normally receive in July.

“Our objective is to lend a helping hand to pork producers who are presently going through a difficult time. It is a question of survival,” declared Yvon Vallières, Quebec’s minister of Agriculture, des Pêcheries et de l’Alimentation (MAPAQ). Last week, the minister had announced that he was working to speed up the compensation payment.

The advance will be split between the feeding operations, which will receive $45 per sow, for a total of $25 million, and the farrowing operations, which will receive $3.40 per piglet, for a total of $17.1 million. On top of this amount, the Financière agricole will inject an additional $7.4 million during the third week of April, as final payment for last year’s compensation.

In July, the Financière agricole intends to intervene again, with an additional compensation advance. Furthermore, pork producers can request an advance on their federal Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program (CAIS) for the 2005 and 2006 period.

“The situation is extremely difficult in terms of cash-flow and the financial health of the producers. We have been hit hard, ” declared Claude Corbeil, president of the Féderation des producteurs de porcs du Québec (FPPQ). Although satisfied with the financial aid, Corbeil underlined that pork producers have been contributing to this insurance fund, which has been growing over the past two years. In addition to the stabilization insurance, he also indicated that producers expect a special assistance program from governments. The federal CAIS, he says, will not be enough to cover the deficit.

Regarding the matter, Yvon Vallières clarified that the Financière agricole is in the process of gathering a complete picture of the situation. In fact, each producer is being contacted individually by telephone and the operation should be completed by Thursday, April 9. Presently, 130 pork producers are in arrears on loan payments to their financial institutions, compared to 100 enterprises at the beginning of the year.

Last week, Yvon Vallières discussed with his federal counterpart, Chuck Strahl, on possible federal participation in a special aid package. After sharing views on the global picture, both parties agreed to look at possible solutions.

“One of our strengths in Quebec is our ability to make decisions rapidly. Our reaction time is faster than others,” exclaimed the Financière agricole and UPA President Laurent Pelletier.

Vaccine

According to Minister Vallières, the present situation facing producers is due primarily to a disease called post-weaned wasting syndrome. In 2005, he explained, 50 per cent of pig farms experienced a mortality rate of 7.6 per cent. The circovirus, he added, is not transmissible to humans.

The MAPAQ, in cooperation with the Féderation des producteurs de porcs du Québec, practicing veterinarians and the Faculty of Veterinary Medecine are presently studying the possibility of importing a vaccine that is already being used in Europe to fight the circovirus.

FPMQ elects its first female president

Julie Roy

SAINT-ROCH-DE-L’ACHIGAN – For the first time in its 25-year existence, the Féderation des producteurs maraîchers du Québec (FPMQ) has elected a woman to the president’s chair. However, it will not be an easy year for Lise Leclair, a 35-year-old producer from Sherrington. The FPMQ is going through a difficult period and there are many issues to take care of.

Leclair expressed confidence in the project adopted by the Annual General Assembly. “It will work. We can’t allow the federation to die—we need it,” she stated with optimism. On this point, she believes that people often do not completely understand the role and mandate of the FPMQ. “If we went door-to-door, I am sure that everybody would become a member,” she speculates.

Leclair was also the first woman to have a seat on the executive committee of the federation. She notes, “I am used to working with men, and for me, being a woman is not a hindrance. On the contrary; I am well supported.”

One of the new president’s objectives is to close the gap between the various stakeholders of the sector, so that they may work better together. As for other key issues, such as income stabilization, crop insurance, approval of pesticides and crop protection, she is counting on the strength of her team to get a better grasp the details of these issues. “I am very familiar with these files, but I’d like to delve deeper in order to better defend our positions,” she asserts. Former president Michel Sauriol has promised to support his successor to insure a proper follow-up on these topics.

Resolutions

In addition, the delegates at the annual general meeting adopted several resolutions aimed at resolving various issues. They decided to support the FPMQ in its attempt to improve the advance payment program. In addition, they requested that their Federation lobby the various governments to improve the income stabilization program (CAIS), in order to make it more equitable for market growers. They also gave it the mandate to discuss with the Financière agricole to re-establish the Net Income Stabilization Account program (NISA), retroactively to 2005, and to permit producers to have access to the best of either program (CAIS or NISA). Turning towards the MAPAQ and the Financière agricole, they asked that cost of production models be established for the principal market garden crops, in cooperation with the FPMQ. A request was also made that the Financière agricole accelerate the processing of payments due under the CAIS. Finally, a motion was approved to approach the federal Pest Management Regulatory Agency, in order to obtain approval of pesticides needed in celeriac production.

Market gardeners federation sends out a cry for help

Julie Roy

The Féderation des producteurs maraîchers du Québec (FPMQ) is celebrating its 25 ^th anniversary. To most, that’s something to celebrate—but for the fact that the federation is facing some serious financial difficulties. The organization’s financial troubles came to light on February 21, where members were attending their annual general meeting. “If we can’t find more money, we will have to shut down,” exclaimed the FPMQ’s out-going president, Michel Sauriol.

In fact, with a monetary shortfall of this magnitude, it’s estimated that the FPMQ’s coffers will be empty by August 2006. The deficit is estimated to be $125,000 and is due mainly to the withdrawal of the Association des jardiniers maraîchers du Québec, who were supporting the federation through their own operating budget. Far from being bitter about this decision, Michel Sauriol suggests that it is high time that the federation pulls its own weight. “Solutions to the financial problems must come from the producers themselves,” he insists. Presently, out of a total of 1200 producers, only 300 subscribe voluntarily. He also believes it is out of the question to increase membership fees. “We do not want to force anybody, but the fact remains that we are working on issues that are important to all market growers and we must collect money from the whole group,” he explained to the assembly.

A fee on seed stock?

The solution proposed at the annual general meeting is to levy a fee directly on seed purchases. Contacts have already been made to explore this avenue with the four principal seeds distributors, who have expressed interest in supporting the sector, but they are not ready to act as ‘police’ to ensure that everyone pays.

Ideally, Sauriol estimates a need to collect between 1 and 1¼ per cent of the annual seed sales, but this is easier said than done. The rules have not yet been established, the legal structure is not yet in place and time is passing. This solution could not be functional before next fall.

To redress the finances of the FPMQ, a joint plan for the market gardening sector was proposed in 2001, but members rejected it. For the time being, no other solutions have been put forward. “We have come to the end of the line and this is our last chance,” warns Michel Sauriol.

A breeze of optimism for farmers at Mirabel

Julie Mercier

A promise by the new federal minister of Transport to sell back the reserve of 11,000 acres of land at Mirabel airport has delighted farmers who have been cultivating this rented land.

“The 11,000 acres will be sold back. I am confident of that,” exclaimed Marcel Denis, president of the Committee for the 11,000 acres. It is the second time in the history of the Mirabel airport that the scene has repeated itself. With the arrival to power of the Conservative government during the ‘80s, a first wave of retrocession of some 80,000 acres took place. At that time, Denis was able to buy back his family farm. Unfortunately, the tenant farmers on the remaining 11,000-acre tract of land were not so lucky.

The retrocession of this land would stimulate agricultural development in the area.

“It’s not prudent for farmers to make large investments when they are not on their own land,” explains Denis. After more than twenty years, the Conservatives may now remedy that situation.

For the last 35 years, the on-going saga of the Mirabel airport has known many ups and downs. In 2004, the transfer of passenger flights to the Dorval airport rekindled the hopes of Mirabel farmers. In December of last year, work by the permanent transportation committee resulted in a vote by federal MPs in favour of the resale of the land. However, the then-minister of Transport, Liberal Jean Lapierre, remained opposed to the project.

End of uncertainty

Before closing the book on the case, Denis—who also acts as president for his local syndicate of the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) in Sainte-Scholastique—would like to clear up several points with the directors of Aéroports de Montréal (ADM). “On an area comparable to the Dorval airport, the Los Angeles airport handles a flow of 55 million passengers. At the ADM, they are worried about a lack of space here with only nine million passengers. Are they simply bad managers?” he asks. “Why was the ADM not able to predict that passenger flights would be transferred to Dorval, when they are already predicting a return to Mirabel in 35 years? Furthermore, investing $100 million in an aquarium, when they know they will be re-opening Mirabel in 35 years—that’s ridiculous,” adds Denis.

Dream or nightmare?

Mirabel farmers strongly denounce the new “ AeroDream” project to convert the Mirabel airport into a recreational theme park. “People are angry. We were always told that we were expropriated for an airport, not an aquarium. Private enterprise will make millions at our expense, on our expropriation! Enough is enough! We’re hearing a lot of talk about a class-action lawsuit. I don’t know if we will go that far, but we’re talking about it,” warns Denis. The president of the Committee for the 11,000 acres sees another struggle on the horizon. “I worry that this will open the door for other projects,” he admits. In fact, not only farmers have their eye on the 11,000 acres. The City of Mirabel would also like to acquire the land for commercial and industrial development. “Mirabel has no right to this. The expropriation occurred in 1969 and the city was not created until 1971. They did not get expropriated,” points out this field crop producer, who fears that the government has learned nothing from their errors.

The words of the late Mr. Jean-Paul Raymond, president of the expropriated Mirabel farmers, are worth thinking about—“Now that it is all over, what can I say to governments? I would first tell them to think twice before making the kind of decisions that so upset a territory and its population, as it happened in Mirabel. They lacked judgment. A huge airport, with a projected 70 million passengers, three hangars, seven runways, the entranceway to North America, (…) a university in Saint-Jerome, industries lining the horizon…it was all a pack of lies. It was a crazy illusion. In the future, we must be more realistic, especially when it comes to agricultural land,” wrote Mr. Raymond in 1988.

The Conservatives considering retrocession on Mirabel land

Julie Mercier

The Conservative government has re-kindled the hopes of farmers in the Mirabel region by opening the door to a possible retrocession of the 11,000 acres of land surrounding the former international airport.

In 2004, Conservative party leader Stephen Harper promised, in front of Mirabel farmers, to sell back the 11,000 acres. On the eve of the last federal election, current Minister of Transport Lawrence Cannon met with Mirabel farmers and repeated his leader’s promise.

Cannon has now kept his promise and has given his signature to the necessary paperwork. “It’s now underway,” confirmed the MP for Pontiac. Cannon took the opportunity to discuss the issue of retrocession by phone with the president of Aéroports de Montréal (ADM), Pierre Martin. “Mr. Martin has assured me of his complete collaboration. Meetings have already been scheduled between the Transport Canada personnel and the ADM representatives. There is good will on both sides to render justice to the farmers of Mirabel,” assured the minister.

However, last week a major Montreal daily newspaper revealed that the CEO of the ADM, James C. Cherry, was not particularly interested in the idea of reselling the 11,000 acres back to the farmers, who are presently cultivating the land under lease. Cherry has always supported the position that the ADM should keep this tract of land in the event that passenger flights are eventually returned to Mirabel. The UPA Committee for the 11,000 acres has requested a meeting with Cherry, but so far has received no reply.

“The government is the owner of this property. As owners, we are the ones who will be making decisions,” declared the Minister of Transport, Infrastructures and Communities. In fact, the ADM rents the land where the Mirabel airport is located from the federal government and a 60-year lease was signed in 1992.

The government will also have its say in the proposed project to convert the former airport into an “ AeroDream” theme park. “We must insure that the terms and conditions of the lease are respected. At first glance, I think it does. It is a good project for the economy of the region,” declared Minister Cannon.

Several years ago, one of the two developers of the “ AeroDream” project, Gilles Assouline, was involved in an aquarium project in the Niagara region in the state of New York. With a cost estimate of $30 million, the Aquafalls project finally fell through. Mr. Assouline denied having any responsibility in the demise of the project, putting the blame on the financial problems of his partners.

“A law with some teeth” for protected appellations

Pierre-Yvon Bégin

“After many attempts Quebec is finally proposing a law that will have teeth, and if applied correctly, will guarantee the authenticity of products and protect the know-how of agri-businesses,” said UPA President Laurent Pellerin.

Appearing before the parliamentary commission studying the new bill No. 137 dealing with Protected appellations of origin and other promotional terms, the president of the UPA was visibly pleased. Pellerin also added that he now has confidence that the government has rallied to the consensus of the agri-food sector, which has been demanding tighter legislation.

However, certain irritants still remain. The UPA believes that the bill is too restrictive in limiting itself only to food products. In the opinion of the union, non-food products, such as emu oil or goat-milk soap should also be covered.

“Wool is also a good example,” added Laurent Pellerin. “Even if we don’t eat it, it is part of agriculture.”

Minister of Agriculture Yvon Vallières declared that he shared the conclusions of the UPA memoir “to the letter.” However he did show some hesitation to include non-food products, judging that it would be preferable to concentrate on food products for the time being. “Since it is a new concept,” declared the minister, “we will have to give ourselves a bit of time.”

On another question, the UPA asked that the law be modified in order to limit the use of the word “terroir” to only products using a protected appellation. According to Laurent Pellerin, it will be much easier to restrict its use right from the beginning and then enlarge the use over time, if required.

“If [packaged food company] Cordon Bleu doesn’t voluntary abstain from the use of the term ‘ produit du terroir’ in its canned products now, then ten years from now, we won’t be able to ask them to do it. It would be a major struggle.”

In a final important recommendation, the UPA asks that the government require that all imported products, no matter what their origin, be subjected to the same rules concerning the protected appellations and other promotional terms.

“What would happen, for instance, if an Ontario farmer suddenly decided to produce ‘Charlevois veal?’” questioned the UPA president.